Saturday, June 15, 2013

That Yeast Study is a Good Example of How Evolutionary Theory Works

The Subtleties of Science

In 1846 astronomers in Europe discovered the planet Neptune. It wasn’t the first time Neptune had been seen, but it was the first time the object was identified as a planet. And how did the astronomers know where to look, and know that the object was Neptune? Because the position of Neptune had been computed and predicted. So they looked, and sure enough, there was Neptune. In fact similar predictions had been made independently by different scientists. The predictions were based on observations indicating that the next closest planet, Uranus, did not quite follow its expected orbit. Was Newtonian physics wrong? Perhaps Newton’s Law of Gravity broke down at longer distances. Or perhaps there was a perturbing force from another planet. It was the latter and Newtonian physics survived a strong test.

In this example of the discovery of Neptune, the initially false prediction of Uranus’ orbit eventually led to a greater understanding of the solar system. We discovered a planet. But sometimes false predictions reveal a problem with the theory. About fifty years later scientists began to doubt Newtonian physics not at long distances, but at short distances. The result was quantum mechanics and the understanding that Newtonian physics is incomplete. Quantum mechanics, which is important at the atomic level, was needed to complete the picture.

So false predictions can advance science in different ways. They can teach us about the world or they can teach us about the theory. Either way they lead to a greater understanding of nature.

This greater understanding might also be that a theory is false. This is where science becomes more art than science. For what is the difference between a theory needing adjustment and a theory being false? In principle a theory can always be adjusted to accommodate false predictions? With geocentrism—the idea that the Earth is at the center of the universe—we would expect the planets to follow simple orbits around the Earth. But sometimes they go in reverse. The great astronomer Ptolemy had to introduce dozens of epicycles into the theory where the planets followed strange, contorted trajectories rather than circles. It worked, Ptolemy’s theory described planetary motion very accurately. But was it true?

The theory of evolution has generated a long list of false predictions. Consequently the theory is constantly being revised. Is this good scientific progress or is the idea that the world arose on its own wrong?

One way to evaluate what these false predictions are telling us is to consider the reaction. Just how is the theory of evolution being revised? Is it more like quantum mechanics or geocentrism’s epicycles?

Recently we reported on a false prediction of evolution and gave some of the details. Evolution predicts that different kinds of genes, each found within a group of species, should tell the same story about evolution. They should produce similar evolutionary trees. Evolutionists have touted this fact of nature, and how it confirms a key prediction of evolution, for years. They call it a consilience of independent evidences. But increasingly, as we look under the hood and examine the details, we find there is more contradiction than consilience. The new study provided yet another, systematic and more in-depth, confirmation of these contradictions, or what are called incongruence. Evolutionists were a bit shocked.

What is interesting is how this false prediction was accommodated. The evolutionists tried to fix the problem with all kinds of strategies. They removed parts of genes from the analysis, they removed a few genes that might have been outliers, they removed a few of the yeast species, they restricted the analysis to certain genes that agreed on parts of the evolutionary tree, they restricted the analysis to only those genes thought to be slowly evolving, and they tried restricting the gene comparisons to only certain parts of the gene.

These various strategies each have their own rationale. That rationale may be dubious, but at least there is some underlying reasoning. Yet none of these strategies worked. In fact they sometimes exacerbated the incongruence problem. What the evolutionists finally had to do, simply put, was to select the subset of the genes or of the problem that gave the right evolutionary answer. They described those genes as having “strong phylogenetic signal.”

And how do we know that these genes have strong phylogenetic signal. Because they give the right answer.

This is an example of a classic tendency in science known as confirmation bias. You search for the evidence that confirms your hypothesis, and ignore or explain away the rest. This is what happens when the theory is in control. The theory determines the right answer. One way or another, the study will arrive at the right answer, no matter what is required.

Methods will be attempted, data will be filtered, results will be selected and in the end you will have the right answer. Of course if evolution is true then all of this is warranted. If the world spontaneously arose as a consequence of random events and natural law—chance and necessity—then we need to search for how that could have happened. This is, of course, what evolutionists do. But do their studies reveal evolution to be a fact, as evolutionists claim they do?

162 comments:

The reason why Evolutionists actually believe in their nonsense is that they don't really believe in the concept of specification. They only believe in complexity and that given enough complexity you'll find some "specification" in there. They don't understand that you can't obtain specification (and especially functional specification) from mere complexity. So the greater the complexity the better it is (apparently) for Evolutionists. "Problems" are solved with greater complexity, simply throw complexity at a "problem" (they don't believe in "problems" and "solutions" to "problems") and the "solution" is somewhere within that rats nest of complexity.

Where can I find the specification for a genome? A specification is a before-the fact design document that lays out the requirements that the design must meet. Typically finished designs are then tested against the specification to see if they are "in spec" or "out of spec".

To my knowledge all science knows of the genome is an after-the-fact description of the functionality determined by examining an already existing entity. It's only the IDiots who took this after-the-fact description and decided to call it a "specification". Kinda like finding a hole in a wall, then drawing a bullseye ring around it after and claiming an Intelligent Marksman must exist because *look!* he made a perfect shot.

There is a difference between a specification FOR something and a specification OF something.

FCSI measures the functional specification OF x.

In Engineering the Functional specification/description document is a design specification FOR something. This type of document is usually created before the initial design process begins and updated while the design process is in place (BTW, trial-and-error is also be part of the design process).

Whether there was a "before-the-fact" specification FOR biological system can be answered if FCSI is present.

It's no secret that known "after-the-fact" specification usually implies "before-the-fact" or at least "on-the-fly-guided" specification, the onus is on the Evolutionists to prove otherwise.

There is a difference between a specification FOR something and a specification OF something.

spec·i·fi·ca·tion (sps-f-kshn) n.

"A detailed, exact statement of particulars, especially a statement prescribing materials, dimensions, and quality of work for something to be built, installed, or manufactured."

I'm not confused at all. You claimed to have a specification for a genome, and you don't have one. You have an after-the-fact description.

You IDiots can play all the silly definition games you like, make up your own pet meanings for common words, and science will still just ignore your nonsense. The fact is you don't have a specification, which means you don't have "FCSI" or " dFSC" or whatever other gobbledygook alphabet soup acronym you're using this week.

lcplusplus, are you suggesting that ID's designer did not serve a functional purpose in designing organisms? Isn't this the very same thing that supposedly needs to be explained in biological organisms by a designer?

Again, all ID and creationism does is push the problem up a level . There is nothing wrong with pushing the problem up a level as long as you end up with a better problem, but this is not the case with ID and creationism.

What are our hands made of? What are cells made of? What are atoms made of? What are quarks make of? Etc. All of these questions lead to better problems to solve.

However, saying a "that's just what some abstract designer with no defined limitations must have wanted" does not lead to a better problem to solve.

I think this is the intent of invoking ID's designer. It leaves a hole large enough where the theist can drive their preferred supernatural, inexplicable designer.

The proposition that an advanced alien race designed the biosphere would lead to better problems about those aliens. The proposition that God designed the biosphere cannot lead to better problems about God.

"But do their studies reveal evolution to be a fact, as evolutionists claim they do?"

"Evolution" in the sense that observable and measurable processes fashioned materials into living organsims? No way have their studies revealed this to be "fact".

Yet that is what spins out of all of the unconfirmed conjecture and speculation that is utilized to support the philosphy. That it is a "fact".

Forget all of the contradictions, and failed predictions. These people can't even demonstrate that the fundamental mechanisms of mutation, natural selection, drift, etc are even up to the task of forming a bacterial flagellum let alone the huge array of "irreducibly complex" components and systems that various living organisms contain and depend upon.

Then it should be easy for you to measure the alleged "functional specification" of a banana, a rock, a galaxy, a human, a mosquito, a frog, a dinosaur bone, and an angel, using "FCSI" to do the measuring. Let's see you demonstrate it. It will be entertaining to see you use "FCSI" (i.e. functional complex specified information) to measure "functional specification".

You also said:

"Whether there was a "before-the-fact" specification FOR biological system can be answered if FCSI is present."

LOL. Who says? FCSI, CSI, FSCI, dFSCI, FSCO/I, and dFSCO/I are DEAD. In fact, all that gibberish was still born. dumbski, marks, and anyone else who pushes that crap doesn't have a clue. Go take a look at the threads at theskepticalzone.com about CSI, and don't forget to post your demonstration of measuring the "functional specification" of the things I listed above there too.

"It's no secret that known "after-the-fact" specification usually implies "before-the-fact" or at least "on-the-fly-guided" specification, the onus is on the Evolutionists to prove otherwise."

The same old baloney. It's functional and complex so it must be pre-specified and designed! It's your claim. YOU "prove" it.

Oh, by the way, name at least ten things in the wild that were/are not designed by 'the designer' (aka creator-yhwh-allah-jesus-holy-ghost-satan-angels-sky-daddy-lord, etc.

In the wild means anywhere in the universe, and not pertaining to humans or domesticated animals or plants.

One more thing for now. Why don't you IDiot-creationists just say 'created' instead of 'designed? That IS what you actually believe and mean after all. Your dishonesty is the most irritating thing about you IDiots. Does your being deliberately dishonest please your imaginary god? Does your dishonesty accomplish anything positive?

"It's no secret that known "after-the-fact" specification usually implies "before-the-fact" or at least "on-the-fly-guided" specification, the onus is on the Evolutionists to prove otherwise."

Let's say that I go to a town hit by a tornado and find a 6 foot long 2X4 embedded in the head of a child. After some observations I could after-the-fact specify that the wind of that specific tornado embedded that specific 2X4 in that specific child's head in a specific way at a specific time on a specific day at a specific location.

Would you believe and assert that that event and everything leading up to it (since the beginning of the universe) must have been specified in advance (designed by 'God') or would you believe and assert that 'God' designed/created/guided that event on-the-fly?

After all, events like that are called "acts of God" by religious people and even by insurance companies.

Well, if he says "No, the LHC is not 'specified'", then everyone will naturally conclude he's a dunderhead, while if he says "yes", then the obvious question is, "How can you know this without the 'specification's in your hand?"

You see, Thorton knows 'design' when he sees it; he just doesn't want to admit it.

BTW: You call it a "game." Well, it's you who have made it a "game" by your refusal to answer a simple question. And, you do so because you fully understand what's at stake here, and, being intellectually dishonest, you simply insist on not answering the question.

Good riddance to bad rubbish PaV. You've always been one of the dumber Creationists out there. Now you've joined the ranks of the most lying and dishonest ones too. Congratulation, you'll be working for the DI with the other clowns in no time.

I suggest everyone purchase this new book by Stephen C. Meyer: "Darwin's Doubt"

Why? It's just the same old recycled IDiot Creationist garbage he's been putting on YouTube for the last three years.

What is the ID-Creationist explanation for the 2 1/2 billion years of fossil evidence for life before the Cambrian? How about the Ediacaran biota? The Archean?

How do all the changes observed in life forms in the 540 million years after the Cambrian explosion fit in with the "it was Created" account? What is the explanation for the five major mass extinction events seen in the fossil record since then?

I must admit it's hilarious that the DI is so worried about sales of this latest bit of Creationist puffery they've taken to creating sock-puppet accounts to pimp the book on various C/E blogs and websites. They may be dishonest charlatans but they're not stupid. They know this latest dog turd from Meyers shows every sign of sinking faster than the Titanic.

What is the ID-Creationist explanation for the 2 1/2 billion years of fossil evidence for life before the Cambrian? How about the Ediacaran biota? The Archean?

Why don't you read the book?

You say it's nothing more than his YouTube garbage recycled. But if you had paid attention to his YouTube videos, then, per your hypothesis, you would have known that the Ediacaran has effectively nothing to do with the Cambrian.

And, if you had a mind that functioned well, you would know that a biota that took 2 1/2 billion years to become 'multi-celluar', but only 5 or 6 million years to become 'diverse', and 'complex' means that a theory that posits gradualism is a complete non-starter in explaining why almost nothing at all happened for 2 1/2 billions years and then, in the span of less than 10 million years so many 'diverse' body plans were produced.

01. One of the common objections to Popper having solved the problem of induction is the Duhem-Quine thesis. Specially, that it's possible to modify a theory to avoid falsification. However, Popper addressed this issue head on in his book, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, among others. To summarize, a theory can be modified as long as these modifications are not ad-hoc. (they extend to other explanations as part of a system that can also be criticized.)

Cornelius actually gave an example of non ad-hoc modification, in the case of the conjecture and discovery of an additional planet Neptune, which accounted for discrepancies in the orbit of Uranus. However, he omitted the opposite outcome. The existence of another yet to be discovered planet, Vulcan, was conjectured to account for discrepancies in Newton's predictions of Mercury's orbit. This too was a testable prediction. But unlike, Neptune, we did not discover Vulcan. Furthermore, It was only when Einstein's GR did account for this discrepancy and much more that Newton's law became untenable as a explanation.

So, Popper did present a methodology of how to modify theories. They should be modified in a non ad-hoc way. As long as modifications are also testable, they are not bad science.

For example. the conjecture of other means of varying genes, such as horizontal gene transfer, are testable predictions, so they are not ad-hoc. And we did indeed find examples of HGT, just like we found Neptune. But Popper's methodology did not stop there.

02. In using Epicycles as slang for bad science, Cornelius is either ignoring or denying we have made progress since Ptolemy's time. From Wikipedia…

"Slang for bad science

In part, due to misunderstandings about how deferent/epicycle models worked, "adding epicycles" has come to be used as a derogatory comment in modern scientific discussion. The term might be used, for example, to describe continuing to try to adjust a theory to make its predictions match the facts. According to this notion, epicycles are regarded by some as the paradigmatic example of Bad Science.Part of the problem may be due to the misconception of the epicycle as an explanation of a body's motion rather than merely a description. Toomer explains as follows,

"Whereas we use 'hypothesis' to denote a tentative theory which is still to be verified, Ptolemy usually means by ύπόθεσις something more like 'model', 'system of explanation', often indeed referring to 'the hypotheses which we have demonstrated'."

IOW, epicycles are not bad science because merely they were added to make it's predictions match facts, but because those additions did not add to the explanation. This is lost in Cornelius' objections.

Again, other means of genetic variation, such as HTG, are explanatory in nature, rather than merely predictive.

03. For the umpteenth time, we know theories are incomplete and contain errors since they start as conjectured solutions to problems. Criticizing theories and discarding errors we find is how we make progress. As such, constant handwaving about the possibility that evolutionary theory might be wrong is disingenuous refusal to take our current, best theories seriously for the purpose of criticism. For example…

CH: About fifty years later scientists began to doubt Newtonian physics not at long distances, but at short distances. The result was quantum mechanics and the understanding that Newtonian physics is incomplete. Quantum mechanics, which is important at the atomic level, was needed to complete the picture.

Except the picture is still not complete, as do not have a working theory of quantum gravity. So we know that either GR, QM or both are "wrong" and incomplete. We just do know know exactly where or to what degree. Nor have we discarded them yet because we have yet to conjecture better theories that explain them *better* to replace them. Again, these are concrete examples of how science works, in practice.

Furthermore, anything could be wrong. Again, we make progress when we apply criticism that is specifically designed to differentiate between competing theories by finding at least one in error. However, the criticism that "X might be wrong" can applied to absolutely anything. As such, it cannot even be used in a critical way.

Apparently, Cornelius doesn't think you're smart enough to see though this sort of spectacularly bad argument. it's an insult to your intelligence.

Again, I have yet to see any creationists or ID propionates here take any of our current, best theories seriously for the purpose of criticism.

Scott: "Yet, scientist have redefined the term atom to mean something that can indeed be split. Is this cause for you to stop you from taking scientist seriously? What's the difference?"

Ok, I see your point. Help me understand why they are different. I see the word 'nothing' as describing a state where there is not 'something'. The word Atom describes an actual tangible thing that at the time could not be divided. Now it can be divided thanks to many very intelligent people. My posts may sound like i am trying to be funny but I am pretty serious, except when I am being asked to believe gibberish.

I wonder if the Pied Piper had several PhDs in front of his name. It wouldn't matter. The results were the same, the children were lost.

"I take everything the scientists say seriously, but when they start to redefine absolute terms like 'nothing' to mean 'not nothing', I think the Pied Piper is getting out his flute again..."

Yet you blindly swallow that your chosen 'God' just is, that 'God' is a 'he', that 'he' came from nowhere and nothing, that 'he' is uncaused, eternal, infinite, timeless, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, and perfect.

twt:"Yet you blindly swallow that your chosen 'God' just is, that 'God' is a 'he', that 'he' came from nowhere and nothing, that 'he' is uncaused, eternal, infinite, timeless, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, and perfect."

I follow because there is proof. Just because you think there is no proof doesn't mean proof does not exist. You just haven't found it yet. God is not a fairy tale. The Bible shows God to have a masculine tone and Jesus is a man. Why do come on a creationist blog and flame the participants. Why do you care what I think? Am I trying to limit your liberty by learning about creation? Being a Christian, I want you to become a Christian. I respect your right to turn away from God. God gave that right to every person on the planet.

Scott: Again, I have yet to see any creationists or ID propionates here take any of our current, best theories seriously for the purpose of criticism.

Jeff: Scott, you're one confused puppy. There is no theory that explains naturalistic UCA. There is no theory that implies naturalistic UCA is a logical possibility. There's nothing TO criticize yet. It's just an hypothesis sitting there with no evidence. It's those lying in the name of science who obfuscate to advance their self- and class-interest. You've joined them by implying that the hypothesis of naturalistic UCA is substantive enough to be criticized. It isn't. As a claim (as opposed to a speculative hypothesis), it's a bald pontification.

marcus, I can't say that I'm thrilled with anyone defining nothing as something or the other way around. I haven't read what Krauss says, and even if I find it interesting I don't take anything too seriously when anyone speculates about the ultimate source of everything. There's still a lot to learn, and we humans may never know all of the answers.

In the meantime, asserting a 'God' or 'Gods' with magical, miraculous powers is totally unscientific and ridiculous, and the christian, so-called 'God' is one of the most ridiculous and sadistic 'Gods' ever conjured up.

TWT: "In the meantime, asserting a 'God' or 'Gods' with magical, miraculous powers is totally unscientific and ridiculous, and the christian, so-called 'God' is one of the most ridiculous and sadistic 'Gods' ever conjured up.

Twt, do you think evil exists or are you only referencing evil because the God of the Bible says murder is evil? So, for example, if the God of the Bible does not exist, you would still say murder as it's defined in secular court, would be evil?

Jeff: There is no theory that explains naturalistic UCA. There is no theory that implies naturalistic UCA is a logical possibility. There's nothing TO criticize yet. It's just an hypothesis sitting there with no evidence.

So, you're calming the role that evidence plays in scientific theories is not an idea that is subject to criticism?

Jeff: There is no theory that explains naturalistic UCA. There is no theory that implies naturalistic UCA is a logical possibility. There's nothing TO criticize yet. It's just an hypothesis sitting there with no evidence.

If justification is impossible, we cannot use evidence to prove any theory is true or more probable. So, yes, there is no evidence in this sense. But I've already made my view on this clear.

Apparently, you do not understand the very argument you're presenting well enough to know when it's applicable, or you simply cannot conceive of a case where it wouldn't be applicable.

Where we disagree is the role that evidence plays in criticizing, adopting and relinquishing theories.

"In this sense, critical rationalism turns the normal understanding of a traditional rationalist, and a realist, on its head. Especially the view that a theory is better if it is less likely to be true is in direct opposition to the traditional positivistic view, which holds that one should seek for theories that have a high probability. Popper notes that this "may illustrate Schopenhauer's remark that the solution of a problem often first looks like a paradox and later like a truism". Even a highly unlikely theory that conflicts current observation (and is thus false, like "all swans are white") must be considered to be better than one which fits observations perfectly, but is highly probable (like "all swans have a color"). This insight is the crucial difference between naive falsificationism and critical rationalism. The lower probability theory is favoured by critical rationalism because the higher the informative content of a theory the lower will be its probability, for the more information a statement contains, the greater will be the number of ways in which it may turn out to be false. The rationale behind this is simply to make it as easy as possible to find out whether the theory is false so that it can be replaced by one that is closer to the truth. It is not meant as a concession to justificationist epistemology, like assuming a theory to be "justifiable" by asserting that it is highly unlikely and yet fits observation."

Scott: So, you're calming the role that evidence plays in scientific theories is not an idea that is subject to criticism?

Jeff: Well, what I said is that there is no evidence for naturalistic UCA. But you don't even allow the traditional role of evidence. Because you say no coherent account of things is more or less plausible/probable than any other one. By that view, evidence is non-existent. Evidence means nothing if it is unrelated to a relative plausibility criteria in every sense. How moronic to give a rip if a claim has evidence (by some definition you might have) if that "evidence" doesn't render the claim more plausible than competing claims in any relative sense whatsoever.

You say a theory is better if it's information content is high enough to find fault with it easier. This is all fine and dandy. But per the inductive approach, this "works" because parsimony/breadth of explanation/etc are all considered truth-APPROXIMATING on the view that those relative plausibility criteria are valid because of their LONG-term results, NOT short-term results. A view can be more plausible by those relative plausibility criteria in the short run and be dead wrong simply because the available data is too limited to constrain the range of our extrapolations properly (the continual failing of gravitational theories is an example). That's beside the point. The inductive relative plausibility criteria are the only hypothesis rejection criteria we have. We make progress by applying them over and over to LARGER and LARGER data sets.

Twt: Why don't you consider how that stupid question would apply in a muslim or hindu country?"

You are making awesome progress!Excellent reason to choose Christianity, it works in real life. However, if you profess Jesus is the only way in those countries, you will surely bring trouble if not martyrdom. They cannot tolerate opposition, kinda like you. You seek public ridicule and humiliation, a form of murder of ones character. In those countries, there's a good chance you just get killed out-right.

Twt: "Do you actually believe that murder is deemed to be wrongful, illegal, or "evil" only because of the imaginary, so-called "God of the Bible"?"

Yes, God hates murder. That's why it's one of the ten commandments given to us. Do not murder! Exodus 20:13

If you see a poor example of a Christian, does that mean Christianity as a whole is bad or just that person is a corrupt terrible example?

Jeff: Well, what I said is that there is no evidence for naturalistic UCA.

As I've pointed out elsewhere, this is a parochial argument that is narrow in scope.

"For example, imagine I claimed you clearly must like *coconut flavored* ice-cream since, at some point in the past, you hypothetically said you "enjoyed enjoy eating ice-cream with your family on Sundays". This is a parochial argument in that it assumes there is only one flavor of ice-cream that you could have ate: coconut. My argument hinges on this assumption, yet one can go to any ice-cream shop and note that there is more than one flavor of ice-cream, including vanilla, strawberry, chocolate, etc. So, either I was presenting a disingenuous argument, in that I knew full well there was more than one flavor of ice-cream, but chose to make the argument anyway, or that in making that argument, I would have illustrated gross ignorance about the field of ice-cream as a whole. "

The statement that here is no evidence that naturalistic UCA assumes there is only one role that empirical evidence plays in scientific theories. Furthermore, it's unclear how any observations can positively support any theory, let alone UCA.

Jeff: But you don't even allow the traditional role of evidence. Because you say no coherent account of things is more or less plausible/probable than any other one. By that view, evidence is non-existent. Evidence means nothing if it is unrelated to a relative plausibility criteria in every sense.

I'm not following you. If I do not allow the traditional role of evidence, then evidence is nonexistent? If we do not allow traditional physics, does that mean that physics is nonexistent as well? IOW, you keep presenting the same false dilemma, over and over again.

This is like a game of creationist whack-a-mole, except with epistemology. When I point out one aspect of the theory you keep ignoring, you focus on another while ignoring something else. This is what I mean by taking the theory seriously for the purpose of criticism.

Again, we start out with a problem to solve, then conjecture theories to solve them. So, we start out knowing our theories contain errors and are incomplete. That a theory could be wrong in the short or long term is merely hand waving, because incompleteness and error is our default state. We use observations to become less wrong. That's how we make progress.

Since justification is impossible, in practice, how else do you explain the progress we've made?

Do we use induction to support induction? But that is essentially Hume's position, which is if induction were found to be unreliable, then we would still have to rely on it. But this is not the case because we have a better explanation for the growth of knowledge.

Have you heard of the Münchhausen trilemma?

This argument runs as follows: All of the only three ("tri"-lemma) possible attempts to get a certain justification must fail:- All justifications in pursuit of certain knowledge have also to justify the means of their justification and doing so they have to justify anew the means of their justification. Therefore there can be no end. We are faced with the hopeless situation of 'infinite regression'.- One can justify with a circular argument, but this sacrifices its validity.- One can stop at self-evidence or common sense or fundamental principles or speaking 'ex cathedra' or at any other evidence, but in doing so the intention to install certain justification is abandoned.

Are you saying that we can be certain about fundamental principles? If not, then how do we determine what is a fundamental principle?

The problem with justificationism is that one could arbitrarily claim anything is a fundamental principle and therefore supposedly immune from criticism. This is dogmatism.

Scott: Since justification is impossible, in practice, how else do you explain the progress we've made?

J: By your view, one couldn't recognize progress even if it were made. For you deny that any view/belief/idea if knowably more plausible/probable than any other. You are so confused it's mind-boggling.

And foundationalism is not what you call justificationism. Foundationalists don't justify, e.g., the law of non-contradiction. They can't conceive of the meaning of contradictions. Thus, the law of non-contradiction is foundational to thought that is meaningful PER SE. Other such fundamental beliefs are required to get us to relative plausibility criteria, and so on. These beliefs could be bogus, but they haven't YET been found to be non-correlated to our greatest long-term satisfaction. So we keep using them AXIOMATICALLY. It's THAT SIMPLE.

Jeff: By your view, one couldn't recognize progress even if it were made. For you deny that any view/belief/idea if knowably more plausible/probable than any other. You are so confused it's mind-boggling.

Apparently, your strategy is to ignore key epistemological distinctions I keep making, just as CH ignores distinctions made regarding the non-randomness of the entire evolutionary process. This is yet another example of failing to take the theory seriously for the purpose of criticism.

We make progress, it's just not in the sense you're assuming. We become less wrong. You might need a stronger reason to accept an idea, but that's your problem, not mine. You're merely projecting it on me.

Scott: Are you saying that we can be certain about fundamental principles? If not, then how do we determine what is a fundamental principle?

Jeff: And foundationalism is not what you call justificationism. Foundationalists don't justify, e.g., the law of non-contradiction.

"As an alternative to the classic view, modest foundationalism does not require that basic perceptual beliefs are infallible, but holds that it is reasonable to assume that perceptual beliefs are justified unless evidence to the contrary exists. This is still foundationalism because it maintains that all non-basic beliefs must be ultimately justified by basic beliefs, but it does not require that basic beliefs are infallible and allows inductive reasoning as an acceptable form of inference."

I find it very interesting that Darwinism is the only science that is allowed to ignore math. I was always under the impression that science is all about math. However, when it looks like the math is going against them, they say that, since we don't have exact numbers, we can ignore the math. Science rarely has exact numbers, but other scientists don't feel that they can just ignore them.

I find it very interesting that Darwinism is the only science that is allowed to ignore math.

More ignorance from natschuster. First, there is no science called "Darwinism". Second, if you mean evolutionary theory, there are whole branches that rely on nothing but math i.e. population genetics.

Science does ignore all the stupid Creationist arguments based on made-up unsupported "improbabilities" as well it should.

Really nat, don't you ever get embarrassed by all the arguing from ignorance you do? Shouldn't you try researching before making such stupid statements?

But you told me that evolutionists don't bother trying to calculate the odds of something like a new protein evolving. For example, since we can't, with our current state of knowledge calculate the specified complexity of a protein, we can just ignore the whole concept.

Okay, then what are the chances of any protein evolving? What are the chances of a functioning protein evolving? What are the chances of a specific functioning that an organism needs evolving? This is what specified complexity is all about. Why don't we have to know these things? Why is an estimate meaningless? Don't we have to havce some idea if it is even possible?

What are the chances of a specific functioning that an organism needs evolving?

You've got it bass-ackwards again nat. Proteins don't evolve because of organism 'need'. Organisms end up needing the proteins that have evolved because they're the ones that work in the local environment.

This is what specified complexity is all about. Why don't we have to know these things? Why is an estimate meaningless?

Because knowing a specific actual value doesn't change the fact that the event already happened. Go ahead and compute the specific probability that the Allies would win WW2. Be sure to show your work.

Don't we have to havce some idea if it is even possible?

We do. In fact we have overwhelming evidence that evolution actually occurred. Pity that you choose to remain willfully ignorant about it.

WE know proteins exist. The question is how did they get here. One explanation is evolution. But in order to say evolution is an acceptable explanation we have to know if it is not very highly unlikely. In order to determine if it isn't highly unlikely, don't we have to know the probabilities?

And even if it isn't calculable, given our current state of knowledge, isn't it important to at least get an estimate of how likely it is?

"EL: I don't know. I don't think it's calculable. And because it isn't calculable, you can't compute CSI, because you need that number to plug into the CSI calculation."

Are you saying it isn't calculable in principle, not calculable given our current knowledge. It seems to me that to calculate CSI, you merely take all the possible combinations and divide by the combinations that work. For example, to find the CSI of a lever made of a stick and a rock, take all the possible combinations, stick to the right of the rock, stick to the left of the rock, and stick on top of the rock, and divide by the combinations that work, that is, the stick on top of the rock, one. That gives you a CSI index of three, which isn't very much.

Nat, you've been making the same stupid argument and getting corrected on your blunder for three years now. No, we don't need to know the specific probability of an event to know that the event occurred.

We can't calculate a specific probability that the Allies would win WW2, but we have ample evidence to establish that they did.

We can't calculate a specific probability that Mt. Vesuvius would erupt in 79 AD and bury Pompeii, but we have ample evidence to establish that it did.

We can't calculate a specific probability that particular proteins would evolve to the form we find, but we have ample evidence to establish that they did.

Please stop making the incredibly stupid argument from unknown and unknowable probability.

Hey nat, will you please mathematically measure/calculate (and show your work) how probable and likely it is that adam and eve existed and were the parents of all subsequent humans, that a man could live inside a fish for days and survive, that a woman could be turned into a pillar of salt, that pairs (or more) of every species on/in Earth could fit in a wooden boat and survive worldwide destruction, that the biblical flood occurred, that kangaroos and wombats could swim or hop from the middle east to Australia, that dinosaurs, pelycosaurs, pterosaurs, creodont carnivores, and brontotheres lived alongside people, that a snake could talk, that dead and buried corpses could come back to life and mingle with living people, that goats and sheep could have striped or spotted offspring just because they mated while looking at striped sticks, and that your chosen, so-called 'God' (yhwh-allah-satan-jesus-holy-ghost/etc.) exists and is the one and only 'true God' out of all the so-called 'Gods' that have ever been and ever will be conjured up and promoted?

Sorry, unless you can come up with an actual probability figure and show your work you'd better demand we no longer teach those things in school. Your rules nat. Wouldn't want to be a hypocrite now would you?

The things you mentioned are very unlikely, so that is why they are considered miracles.

Only to a scientifically illiterate layman like you. That's really the whole point.

When you stop being a hypocrite and/or have an argument beyond your own ignorance-driven personal incredulity, let us know.

Did I say we need an actual probability figure? I thought I said, for now, we can work with an estimate. I would estimate that the chances of the allies winning WWII was about 2 out of 3 given the advantages in numbers. I would estimate that the chances of Vesuvius erupting, given the condition at he time, where about the same.

And our you saying that the things The Whole Truth listed are not unlikely? Or that a scientifically literate person doesn't allow miracles as an explanation? But scientists allow universes to pop out of nowhere without an explanation. They allow a universe to be fine tuned without an explanation. They allow inorganic molecules to form bacteria without an explanation. They allow five pounds of protoplasm, the brain to hold a mind, without explanation. Compared to the stuff scientists believe without explanation the miracles of the Bible are easy.

What is a bigger miracle, a talking donkey, or a universe popping out of nowhere? I'm sorry, but I don' have enough faith to believe in Universes popping out of nowhere. I can believe in a talking snake, but non-life spontaneously forming life strains my credibility too much.

Did I say we need an actual probability figure? I thought I said, for now, we can work with an estimate. I would estimate that the chances of the allies winning WWII was about 2 out of 3 given the advantages in numbers. I would estimate that the chances of Vesuvius erupting, given the condition at he time, where about the same

OK then, I say the estimated chance that a protein can evolve is 2 out of 3. If you can pull numbers out of thin air, then so can everyone.

Now your stupid improbability argument has been refuted. You need to find some other Creationist stupidity to blither about.

natschuster: Are you saying it isn't calculable in principle, not calculable given our current knowledge.

Both, and the two are related. That's why it's not the way statistical inference is done in science. Bayesian inference comes slightly closer to it than traditional null hypothesis testing, but it still doesn't give you the probability that your hypothesis is correct, although it may give you an estimate of how likely it is that one hypothesis is a better fit to the data than another.

natschuster: It seems to me that to calculate CSI, you merely take all the possible combinations and divide by the combinations that work. For example, to find the CSI of a lever made of a stick and a rock, take all the possible combinations, stick to the right of the rock, stick to the left of the rock, and stick on top of the rock, and divide by the combinations that work, that is, the stick on top of the rock, one. That gives you a CSI index of three, which isn't very much.

No, that just gives you the probability that a randomly drawn arrangement of sticks will produce a lever. To compute Dembski's CSI, you also need to know how many combinations of whatevers will produce one of some subset of possibly combinations of those whatevers that do something interesting, and how often that subset will occur given the material mechanisms that might produce such a thing.

For example, even IF you could compute the number of proteins that perform a useful function in some organism as a proportion of the number of possible proteins (which is itself not easy to do), you can't just say: OK, take the negative log 2 of that and see if it's less than the threshold. You have to take into account what Dembski calls "the relevant chance hypothesis, including Darwinian and other material mechanisms".

In other words, if you know that the probability that Darwinian or other material mechanisms of producing the observed phenomenon, you can conclude Design (according to Dembski). But if you don't, you can't.

natschuster(sorry I missed this post)Don't the predictions usually involve probabilities? And aren't the conformations mostly probabilities, also?

Yes, they do, but the probability generated isn't the probability that your hypothesis is true. In null hypothesis testing, it's the probability of observing what you observed if the null were true.

And when evolutions predictions don't come true, like the OP above, the evolutionists merely resort to an apologetic like HGT or deep homology.

Well, not exactly. What they have to do is to come up with a possible explanation, derive a testable hypothesis, and test it. Which is how HGT was discovered. That's not "resort[ing] to an apologetic". It's just the iterative process of refining and adjusting models in the light of past data and testing against new data that scientific research consists of.

In other words, it's exactly what scientists should do, and do in fact do.

All theories are certainly false, if only in the sense of being over-simplifications.

I don't think that the chances of a particular protein evolving are 2 out of 3. That is because there are millions of other possibilities. That's a little different than saying that the odds that the allies would win was pretty good because they had more soldiers and guns than the Axis. While we are on the subject of war, something occurred to me. If we see a general with inferior numbers win a battle, write away we say we need to explain why he beat the odds. We have to find superior strategies or tactics. But with evolution, we don't even bother looking at the numbers.

I'm a little bit confused. I'm thinking that you can calculate the CSI of a system using a simple metric. How that CSI got there is the next step. It is possible for a random act to produce CSI if the CSI is low. For example a branch can fall on a rock and produce a lever with a low CSI. The CSI of a protein is higher, so it is unlikely that it was produced by a random process.

natschuster: I'm a little bit confused. I'm thinking that you can calculate the CSI of a system using a simple metric. How that CSI got there is the next step. It is possible for a random act to produce CSI if the CSI is low. For example a branch can fall on a rock and produce a lever with a low CSI. The CSI of a protein is higher, so it is unlikely that it was produced by a random process.

Well, not if you are using Dembski's definition of CSI.

For Dembski's definition you need the probability that you would observe the Target, given a non-design hypothesis.

You also need to define the Target so that it includes other combinations with a comparable specification (for example your stick+rock could make an Inclined Plane, so your Specification needs to be a little broader - "Simple Machines" for instance). But that hurdle is easier to overcome.

The real problem is computing the probability of your Target under your null.

Okay, I'll try. If the protein in question has 100 amino acids, and there are 20 different amino acids, then the chances of getting that protein are 20^100. That's a pretty big number. If we consider every reproductive event that ever happened a chance to make this protein, I still think we would fall short.

I was under the impression that Dembski was saying something along the lines of what I was saying, first compute the CSI, then try to figure out if it is probable for a non-design mechanism to make it. But what do I know. I'm just a simple gut.

I suppose we could broaden the definition in the case of the lever. We could also tighten it, too. For example we could talk about a specific mechanical advantage being necessary. In the case of proteins, I don't think it is easy to broaden the definition, because they have to function in a very constrained context, all the protein complexes and such.

Okay, I'll try. If the protein in question has 100 amino acids, and there are 20 different amino acids, then the chances of getting that protein are 20^100. That's a pretty big number.

Wrong.

First, you assume the amino acids had to assemble all at once into the protein instead of being formed sequentially through iterative evolutionary feedback. For that you need to know the entire process, the intermediate steps, and the probabilities at each iteration, none of which you have accounted for. That kills your value right there.

Second, how many of those 20^100 possible combos are functional and how many aren't. You don't know that either.

Like I said before, you don't have near enough info to make even a rough estimate of any probability. "Argument from improbability" is an amazingly stupid ID con game designed to convince amazingly ignorant lunkheads like you. You seem to fall for the bunk every time.

NS: I was under the impression that Dembski was saying something along the lines of what I was saying, first compute the CSI, then try to figure out if it is probable for a non-design mechanism to make it. But what do I know. I'm just a simple gut.

Well, the way he defines it in his 2005 paper, the probability for a non-design mechanism to make it goes into the calculation of CSI - as the P(T|H) part of the formula.

It's a huge hole in his argument.

I suppose we could broaden the definition in the case of the lever. We could also tighten it, too. For example we could talk about a specific mechanical advantage being necessary. In the case of proteins, I don't think it is easy to broaden the definition, because they have to function in a very constrained context, all the protein complexes and such.

Well, I agree! That's why I think it's an essentially useless concept. What makes me cross about it is that it lends a sciencey-mathy faux-precision to ID arguments, but essentially it boils down to: I don't buy the non-design arguments for this thing, therefore I conclude it was designed.

Which is entirely fair enough, but if that's what the ID argument is, then I think it's misleading to imply that there is a computable metric that tells you whether a thing is Designed or not.

BTW, scientists, equally, shouldn't go around saying: evolution is true, therefore there was no Designer.

But that's rare in my experience, and isn't a scientific statement.

Evolutionary science doesn't tell us that there was no Designer. It does tell us that there is powerful evidence for common descent, and for heritable variance in reproductive success as a cause of adaptation of populations to their environment.

Okay, lets try it this way. Let's say you are evolving a protein from a homologous protein. Tehy can be up to 20% different and still be considered closely homologous, I understand. So you need to change 20 amino acids. That's 20^20 power. That' still a bog number. I don't see how doing it sequentially helps. It could just as easily mutate back to it's original form during the process.

Sometimes, there is no fitness benefit until after a number of mutations have happened, so you don't get the filtering fro a while. And sometimes, mutations make proteins lose stability, so until you have other mutations to compensate, it actually reduces fitness. So it isn't so simple. We can't just say "let's apply the fitness filter to improve the odds."

Let's say you are evolving a protein from a homologous protein. Tehy can be up to 20% different and still be considered closely homologous, I understand. So you need to change 20 amino acids. That's 20^20 power. That' still a bog number.

Poor nat, still confused by the basics. You don't need to change every amino acid to get a homologous protein. Also, you still have no idea how many of the changed ones will work and how many won't. You still have no basis at all to even guess a probability value.

I don't see how doing it sequentially helps. It could just as easily mutate back to it's original form during the process.

Gee, if only we had this effect where the changed versions that didn't work were filtered out and the ones that did work were kept for the next generation. We could even give it a catchy name like natural selection.

"Poor nat, still confused by the basics. You don't need to change every amino acid to get a homologous protein. Also, you still have no idea how many of the changed ones will work and how many won't. You still have no basis at all to even guess a probability value."

I don't recall saying you need to change every amino acid. I think I was ebing generous when I said 20. It could be even more than that. In a bigger protein, you might need to change even more. And, unless Im very much mistaken, proteins can be up to 50# different and still be considered homolougous. So changing twenty was a mow end estimate.

"Yep. it's called neutral drift, and it's a well document evolutionary mechanism."

But then we don't get fitness filtering to help us with the odds. In your very next you said something about natural selection.

""And sometimes, mutations make proteins lose stability, so until you have other mutations to compensate, it actually reduces fitness."

Yep again. One step back then two steps forward is still a net beneficial gain."

But then the filter doesn't kick in to help improve the odds for a while. Andif it actually harmful, then we will see the odds getting worse, for a while.

Ptolemy was at least inductively inferring that OBSERVED regularities would continue to BE regular. That could have value. Naturalistic UCA isn't derived from extrapolation of the observed at all. CH, you keep giving these guys credit they don't deserve. They have NOTHING. And they never have had anything other than personal credulity and incredulity. IOW, they DO precisely what they judge others for. Their hypocrisy would be laughable if it didn't rise to the degree of murderous whiny babies like Stalin, Hitler, Lenin, etc. These babies have to resist dissent by any means to feel good about themselves. They will lie and falsely/hypocritically defame others so fast and so gratuitously that it proves they are motivated by pure, unadulterated CLASS-interest or SELF-interest rather than the greater human good.

A designer can be explanatory, but who in their right mind would not agree that IF we can discover a body of predictable mutational effects and frequencies that implies some UCA tree could have arisen naturally in the posited time-frame that THEN a naturalistic UCA history is more plausible by virtue of seeming MORE parsimonious? But we don't HAVE such a body of knowledge. Worse, we CURRENTLY have zero evidence one is forthcoming, even if one IS forthcoming.

But atheists aren't content with people making tentative inferences to design. They have to resort to the most depraved tactics to resist any criticism of their obviously false claims about "overwhelming evidence".

There's at least that sense of relief, Moronton -- neither side takes the other side seriously. Even when you cheer on those who murder for your side, we won't take you seriously, because we know you're just cry babies acting out your "terrible two's" incessantly.

"But atheists aren't content with people making tentative inferences to design."

Hey everyone, take a real good look at that sentence. First, the reference to atheists once again proves that jeff's agenda and the ID agenda are RELIGIOUS, not scientific. Second, "tentative inferences to design"? Are you kidding me? There's NOTHING "tentative" about you IDiot-creationist-dominionists trying to cram your religious fairy tales down the throats of everyone on Earth (especially children), and your so-called "inferences to design" are a willfully immoral, despicable, LYING attempt to mask your actual motives and agenda.

"They have to resort to the most depraved tactics to resist any criticism of their obviously false claims about "overwhelming evidence"."

"There's at least that sense of relief, Moronton -- neither side takes the other side seriously. Even when you cheer on those who murder for your side, we won't take you seriously, because we know you're just cry babies acting out your "terrible two's" incessantly."

pretty much sums it up for those two. Rarely read through anything the two teen dumb and dumbers write. Its just like reading the same shrill whining over and over. Funnier still is they have the same repetitive vocabulary each time. Did they use "godbotherer", "asshat" "IDiot" and foam at the mouth about "God thumpers" and religious fairy tales (mostly twt) this time? LOL after I type this I'll make an exception and see how close I came.

None of the truth: Are you kidding me? There's NOTHING "tentative" about you IDiot-creationist-dominionists trying to cram your religious fairy tales down the throats of everyone on Earth (especially children), and your so-called "inferences to design" are a willfully immoral, despicable, LYING attempt to mask your actual motives and agenda.

Jeff: Dude, you must lie to yourself non-stop. CH has said over and over that he doesn't care if UCA is true. He just knows that claims of "overwhelming evidence" for naturalistic UCA are bald-face lies.

Jeff: Dude, you must lie to yourself non-stop. CH has said over and over that he doesn't care if UCA is true. He just knows that claims of "overwhelming evidence" for naturalistic UCA are bald-face lies.

You're assuming Cornelius' claims are in a vacuum. But they are not.

CH has said there is no explanation for UCA, as have you. At which point, he is referring to the logical possibility of UCA, not the explanatory theory.

Again, Cornelius' goal is to deny we have made progress, or that progress is even possible on the origin of biological adaptations. Progress, in this sense, takes the form explanatory theories.

No explanation, no conflict with his theological commitment.

To the degree that we explain anything, it's that explanation itself that explains biological adaptations, not the designer.

To the degree that we explain the designer, it is no longer supernatural, but merely unseen entities or causes.

Furthermore, Cornelius' doesn't care if UCA is true as long as it's merely one giant, astronomically unlikely random accident. When we point out this is a gross misrepresentation over and over again, he keeps making the same mistake over and over again.

Why might this be the case?

The underlying explanation of evolutionary theory is that the knowledge of how to transform air, water, etc., into copies of itself, as found in the genome, was created via conjecture, in the form of genetic variation that is random *to any particular problem to solve*, and refutation, in the form of natural selection. The result is non-explanatory knowledge.

This is unacceptable as it conflicts with his theological commitment that knowledge in specific spheres comes from supernatural, authoritative sources. As such, he keeps repeating the same completely random misrepresentation over and over again.

I have repeatedly invited CH to deny that he thinks knowledge in specific spheres only comes from supernatural, authoritative sources or to clarify exactly where I got his position wrong is, in detail. It has come as no surprise that he has done neither.

And every time he says it he's lying, which is abundantly evidenced by his 'holy war' against evolution and evolutionary theory

Can you give an example?

--------------------

You just don't know when to quit playing dishonest games, do you?

Look, you repeatedly say that you "don't care" whether evolution is true or not but you DO CARE! In fact, You CARE SO MUCH that you've devoted your life to denying evolution, strawmanizing and bashing evolutionary theory and replacing it with your religious fairy tales, and demonizing "evolutionists".

"How devoid of ideals and how ignoble is the whole contemporary system! The fact that the churches join in committing this sin against the image of God, even though they continue to emphasize the dignity of that image, is quite in keeping with their present activities. They talk about the Spirit, but they allow man, as the embodiment of the Spirit, to degenerate to the proletarian level. Then they look on with amazement when they realize how small is the influence of the Christian Faith in their own country and how depraved and ungodly is this riff-raff which is physically degenerate and therefore morally degenerate also. To balance this state of affairs they try to convert the Hottentots and the Zulus and the Kaffirs and to bestow on them the blessings of the Church. While our European people, God be praised and thanked, are left to become the victims of moral depravity, the pious missionary goes out to Central Africa and establishes missionary stations for negroes. Finally, sound and healthy – though primitive and backward – people will be transformed, under the name of our 'higher civilization', into a motley of lazy and brutalized mongrels.It would better accord with noble human aspirations if our two Christian denominations would cease to bother the negroes with their preaching, which the negroes neither desire nor understand. It would be better if they left this work alone, and if, in its stead, they tried to teach people in Europe, kindly and seriously, that it is much more pleasing to God if a couple that is not of healthy stock were to show loving kindness to some poor orphan and become a father and mother to him, rather than give life to a sickly child that will be a cause of suffering and unhappiness to all."

The above is from Book 2, Chapter 2, of "Mein Kampf." It not sound like conventional Christianity to me. Nothing in there about Salvation, Redemption, etc.

Scott: CH has said there is no explanation for UCA, as have you. At which point, he is referring to the logical possibility of UCA, not the explanatory theory.

J: But I'm merely saying that no naturalistic explanation has been articulated, not that it's knowably impossible to DISCOVER a naturalistic explanation.

Scott: Again, Cornelius' goal is to deny we have made progress, or that progress is even possible on the origin of biological adaptations. Progress, in this sense, takes the form explanatory theories.

J: Where has he said that?

Scott: No explanation, no conflict with his theological commitment.

J: You're misreading him. He is saying his theological commitment doesn't depend on either UCA or SA.

Scott: To the degree that we explain anything, it's that explanation itself that explains biological adaptations, not the designer.

J: No, some people explain in terms of designers + natural causality. And to the extent that adaptations are explained naturalistically, they don't imply any UCA tree did occur or COULD HAVE occurred.

Scott: To the degree that we explain the designer, it is no longer supernatural, but merely unseen entities or causes.

J: There's no way to even define "supernatural" non-arbitrarily. And that's why explaining in terms of a designer is just another species of hypothetico-deductive explanation. We don't explain designers when we're explaining other effects AS ends.

Scott: Furthermore, Cornelius' doesn't care if UCA is true as long as it's merely one giant, astronomically unlikely random accident.

J: Where has he said that?

Scott: When we point out this is a gross misrepresentation over and over again, he keeps making the same mistake over and over again.

J: You're misreading him or intentionally misrepresenting him because you can't admit you and your cohorts have nothing and never have had anything (YET!) in support of naturalistic UCA.

Scott: The underlying explanation of evolutionary theory is that the knowledge of how to transform air, water, etc., into copies of itself, as found in the genome, was created via conjecture, in the form of genetic variation that is random *to any particular problem to solve*, and refutation, in the form of natural selection.

J: Funny. I've never heard anyone but you call a natural, mindless event a conjecture. So I think it's safe to say you're pontificating wildly.

Scott: The result is non-explanatory knowledge.

Jeff: Non-explanatory, indeed. But knowledge? No! Conjecture is NOT the definition of knowledge. People conjecture that the universe is created by a designer. But you don't believe that's knowledge do you? If you do, then knowledge, by your definition, can be contradictory, in which case knowledge, by your definition of it, is worthless.

Scott: This is unacceptable as it conflicts with his theological commitment that knowledge in specific spheres comes from supernatural, authoritative sources.

J: Where has he said that?

Scott: As such, he keeps repeating the same completely random misrepresentation over and over again.

J: Nope, he's saying there's no "overwhelming evidence" for naturalistic UCA. And you say the same thing. Because you say there's no evidence for any view/idea since all views/ideas can never be known to be more or less probable/plausible than other ideas.

Scott: I have repeatedly invited CH to deny that he thinks knowledge in specific spheres only comes from supernatural, authoritative sources or to clarify exactly where I got his position wrong is, in detail.

J: Why don't you just quote him as saying that? That'd be a good start, don't you think? He's specifically said multiple times he couldn't care less whether naturalistic UCA is true or not. That wouldn't even rule out that organisms are designed anyway. You do realize that don't you?

"Why don't you just quote him as saying that? That'd be a good start, don't you think? He's specifically said multiple times he couldn't care less whether naturalistic UCA is true or not. That wouldn't even rule out that organisms are designed anyway. You do realize that don't you?"

Hmm, a liar making excuses for a liar. That's mighty christian of you, jeff.

And you sure are hung up on the UCA/SCA thing. You just have to protect your 'I ain't no filthy ape!' arrogance, don't you?

You're special, exceptional, superior, and a clone of 'God's image', right? Tell me, have you performed any miracles lately?

Scott: CH has said there is no explanation for UCA, as have you. At which point, he is referring to the logical possibility of UCA, not the explanatory theory.

Jeff: But I'm merely saying that no naturalistic explanation has been articulated, not that it's knowably impossible to DISCOVER a naturalistic explanation.

UCA cannot be an explanatory theory if "no naturalistic explanation has been articulated". In the absence of an explanatory theory, UCA would currently be a mere logical possibility.

Scott: Again, Cornelius' goal is to deny we have made progress, or that progress is even possible on the origin of biological adaptations. Progress, in this sense, takes the form explanatory theories.

Jeff: Where has he said that?

Where has he done anything but deny we have made progress, or that progress is even possible on the origin of biological adaptations?

Specifically, Cornelius has said we cannot know if God would or would not have chosen to create the world we observe. Therefore, evolution is a form of belief equivalent to religion. But one could make the argument that we cannot know if God chose to create the universe we observe five seconds ago, with the appearance of age, etc. This is a variation of Solipsism, which claims there is a boundary where human reasoning and problem solving cannot pass. The boundary has just been moved to a different location.

Scott: When we point out this is a gross misrepresentation over and over again, he keeps making the same mistake over and over again.

Jeff: You're misreading him or intentionally misrepresenting him because you can't admit you and your cohorts have nothing and never have had anything (YET!) in support of naturalistic UCA.

Are you claiming Cornelius does not constantly present evolution as a dichotomy of mere random chance or design and ignore clarification to the contrary?

Scott: The underlying explanation of evolutionary theory is that the knowledge of how to transform air, water, etc., into copies of itself, as found in the genome, was created via conjecture, in the form of genetic variation that is random *to any particular problem to solve*, and refutation, in the form of natural selection.

Jeff: Funny. I've never heard anyone but you call a natural, mindless event a conjecture. So I think it's safe to say you're pontificating wildly.

No request of clarification: check. Moves on to dismiss the actual substance of the explanation: check. Fails to take the theory seriously for the purpose of criticism: check. No surprise here.

Again, evolutionary theory falls under the same umbrella theory of our current, best explanation for the universal growth of knowledge. As such, genetic variation plays the role of conjecture in our explanation for the growth of human knowledge. Because this variation is random *in respect to any problem to solve* the result is non-explanatory knowledge.

Jeff: Non-explanatory, indeed. But knowledge?

Again, knowledge, as I'm using it here, is information that tends to remain when placed in a medium. This is a single epistemological definition knowledge that unifies theories of human knowledge and the knowledge of how to build biological adaptations that is independent of human beings. I've pointed is out several times before, but you keep ignoring it. Go figure.

"Critical rationalism rejects the classical position that knowledge is justified true belief; it instead holds the exact opposite: That, in general, knowledge is unjustified untrue unbelief. It is unjustified because of the non-existence of good reasons. It is untrue, because it usually contains errors that sometimes remain unnoticed for hundreds of years. And it is not belief either, because scientific knowledge, or the knowledge needed to build a plane, is contained in no single person's mind. It is only available as the content of books."

Jeff: People conjecture that the universe is created by a designer. But you don't believe that's knowledge do you? If you do, then knowledge, by your definition, can be contradictory, in which case knowledge, by your definition of it, is worthless.

Are you really this dense or is this just a disingenuous attempt to play dumb?

Again, we start out with a problem, conjecture one or more solutions to that problem, criticize them and discard errors we find. It's an error correcting process, Jeff, not just conjecture or just criticism, or just problems, etc. This is the same disingenuous misrepresentation that CH makes regarding genetic variation and natural selection.

You don't have to take the theory seriously, but don't pretend that you are.

Scott: This is unacceptable as it conflicts with his theological commitment that knowledge in specific spheres comes from supernatural, authoritative sources.

Jeff: Where has he said that?

Are you saying the idea that knowledge in specific spheres is dictated in some form by supernatural sources isn't a core commitment of theism? Wouldn't denying this conflict with theism? If so, why don't you enlighten us on how supernatural authoritative sources fit into the growth of human knowledge, then point out how I got it wrong? Please be specific.

Scott: As such, he keeps repeating the same completely random misrepresentation over and over again.

Jeff: Nope, he's saying there's no "overwhelming evidence" for naturalistic UCA. And you say the same thing. Because you say there's no evidence for any view/idea since all views/ideas can never be known to be more or less probable/plausible than other ideas.

In the epistemological sense of empiricism, no there isn't positive evidence for UCA. But this isn't unique to evolutionary theory, as there isn't positive evidence for anything. While empiricism represented progress by promoting observation in science, it got the role of empirical observations bass akwards.

Theories are tested by observations, not derived from them in a positive sense. So, from the perspective of Critical Rationalism, UCA has withstood an overwhelming amount of empirical criticism in the last 150 years. I've make this distinction over and over again, yet you keep making the same mistake over and over agin. Sounds vaguely familiar, doesn't it?

Scott: I have repeatedly invited CH to deny that he thinks knowledge in specific spheres only comes from supernatural, authoritative sources or to clarify exactly where I got his position wrong is, in detail.

Jeff: Why don't you just quote him as saying that? That'd be a good start, don't you think?

You're assuming Cornelius would bother defending a theistic commitment he knows his audience already holds. Why would he try to convince you of something you already believe via argument? Furthermore, in doing so he would acknowledge that other forms of epistemology exist and that his claims hinge on one form in particular. This does not suit his agenda of denying that we have or can make progress on the origin of biological adaptations.

If I've got his position wrong, he could simply say what is position *is*, in detail, and point out where I got it wrong, don't you think? Yet, he hasn't. So, I can't quote him as saying anything. Apparently, he thinks by refusing to disclose his position, this somehow means he doesn't actually hold one, despite being a theist.

Jeff: He's specifically said multiple times he couldn't care less whether naturalistic UCA is true or not. That wouldn't even rule out that organisms are designed anyway. You do realize that don't you?

Again, if there is no current explanation, then UCA is merely a logical possibility. At which point it would not conflict with the idea that knowledge in specific spheres comes from authoritative sources. So, yes, I realize that. It's been my point all along. Apparently, you're just catching up.

Scott: Again, if there is no current explanation, then UCA is merely a logical possibility.

Jeff: This is where you're confused. We don't KNOW that it's a logical possibility. And CH has said MULTIPLE times that he doesn't care whether UCA is true. Why would he if he's already rejected a literal interpretation of Genesis and the implications for SA that approach has? ID doesn't depend on SA. You're assuming of CH what is patently false.

Scott: So, from the perspective of Critical Rationalism, UCA has withstood an overwhelming amount of empirical criticism in the last 150 years.

Jeff: All non-falsifiable hypotheses withstand ALL amounts of criticism if naive falsifiability is all you're going by. You can't even define, consistently with the consensi, what empiricism means that is contradictory to idealism. You're UTTERLY confused.

Scott: Again, if there is no current explanation, then UCA is merely a logical possibility.

Jeff: This is where you're confused. We don't KNOW that it's a logical possibility.

Just so I'm clear, we supposedly cannot make progress using deduction because there is an infinite number of logical possibilities, but we cannot tell if UCA is one of them? We know that solipsism is a logical possibility, but not UCA?

What is the logical barrier to UCA? Are genomes static? Do organisms not reproduce by copying their genome? Or perhaps you think knowledge in specific spheres only comes from authoritative sources?

Jeff: And CH has said MULTIPLE times that he doesn't care whether UCA is true.

If it's a mere logical possibility, there are no implications by nature of being an explanation-less possibility. That's how he disingenuously presents himself as neutral on the subject.

Jeff: Why would he if he's already rejected a literal interpretation of Genesis and the implications for SA that approach has? ID doesn't depend on SA. You're assuming of CH what is patently false.

Are you even reading my comments?

The core theological commitment I'm referring to is that knowledge in specific spheres only comes from supernatural authoritative sources. If the biosphere is just one giant accident, then we would have no reason to think that our minds could make progress or that morality would be anything but relativism, etc. By claiming there is no explanation, then it's merely a logical possibility, which has no implications on knowledge because it wouldn't be knowledge in that sphere. That's my point.

Don't we see these exact arguments being made by theists here and elsewhere? What core theological commitment is this based on?

The proposition that an advanced alien race designed the biosphere would lead to better problems about those aliens. The proposition that some abstract designer with no defined limitations designed the biosphere cannot lead to better problems about that designer.

Scott: So, from the perspective of Critical Rationalism, UCA has withstood an overwhelming amount of empirical criticism in the last 150 years.

Jeff: All non-falsifiable hypotheses withstand ALL amounts of criticism if naive falsifiability is all you're going by.

First, you're confusing yet to be falsified with non-falsifiable.

Second, I'm not merely going with naive falsifiability, as I've already indicated and referenced. This is yet another instance of ignoring distinctions I've made over and over again.

Jeff: You can't even define, consistently with the consensi, what empiricism means that is contradictory to idealism. You're UTTERLY confused.

We've been over this as well. Do we need to add problems recalling what I wrote in comments on other threads in addition to issues with reading comprehension?

I am not a non-solipsist because merely because it conflicts with my intuition. I am a non-solipsist because it does not explain why object-like facets of my internal self would follow laws of physics-like facets of my internal self. Nor does it explain why other conscious being-like facets of my internal self would disagree with me on solipsism.

Adding to the pile, another differentiation can be found here. Of course, I'm sure you'll just ignore these as well, and make the same comment elsewhere.

"What we do instead is to make predictive hypotheses that can be tested against new data. If the prediction is confirmed, then the hypothesis is supported."

For NDE "science", this often means:

"The evolutionists tried to fix the problem with all kinds of strategies. They removed parts of genes from the analysis, they removed a few genes that might have been outliers, they removed a few of the yeast species, they restricted the analysis to certain genes that agreed on parts of the evolutionary tree, they restricted the analysis to only those genes thought to be slowly evolving, and they tried restricting the gene comparisons to only certain parts of the gene."

In other words often times the following occurs, not just in real science but also with NDE research, utilizing scientific methods:

"This is an example of a classic tendency in science known as confirmation bias. You search for the evidence that confirms your hypothesis, and ignore or explain away the rest. This is what happens when the theory is in control. The theory determines the right answer. One way or another, the study will arrive at the right answer, no matter what is required."

"I don't think it's calculable." (chances of any protein evolving)

What a joke. NDE philosphers should shove their gatts back into their trousers and give an honest effort towards developing and refining mathematical techniques that may shed sorely need quantification into the philosphy, if it really wants to demonstrate anything but the usual "just so stories", circular rhetoric, God wouldn't have done it this way, looks similar therefore NDE, etc.etc.etc.

I mean, come on, how many decades and how many billions of dollars have been thrown down that rat-hole. Devote those resources to develop the approach from these probablistic perspectives and maybe you will have something "scientific" to discuss.

Good chance there isn't much interest there. Why? Since evolutionary "scientists" (philosophers) have such vivid imaginations and rely so heavily on "intuition" they can easily come to the conclusion that if a probablistic method or system of evaluation were developed, NDE would fail miserably by those standards. This would pull the rug out from under their beloved philosophy (pawned off on the public as science) resulting ego dismantling coupled with the ridicule they so richly deserve.

Hey Dr Hunter,Would you be so kind to post a little on mimicry. I found only one post related to it. The mimic octopus (http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/search?q=mimicry). How does mimicry fit in with the creation vs. evolution debate? Is it more random mutations and natural selection blooming gibberish?

So many falsifications, and so little time. That is a good topic you raise, for a many modifications are required to achieve successful mimicry such as with the detachable dorsal fin in the decoy fish:

CH:There is no scientific evidence there is a smooth path of increasing fitness.

Actually, there's evidence that there isn't, if you are calculating "fitness" against some absolute value. Populations wax and wane.

Your problem, Cornelius, is that by failing to understand the theory - or rather body of theories - you criticise, you repeatedly destroy straw men of your own creation.

What there is plenty of evidence for is that where there is heritable variation in fitness in a population, the fitter variants will tend to become more prevalent. This remains true even of a population heading for extinction.

EL: What there is plenty of evidence for is that where there is heritable variation in fitness in a population, the fitter variants will tend to become more prevalent. This remains true even of a population heading for extinction.

There is good evidence for common ancestry, and plenty of well-supported postulated mechanisms as to how a common ancestral population could give rise to many diverse and environmentally adapted populations, but it certainly doesn't "rule out" Separate Ancestry, just as it doesn't "rule out" Last Thursdayism!

It's just that we can't infer Separate Ancestry from the data. Living things clearly can be arranged in non-overlappping hierarchies based on longitudinally heritable characteristics. However, as we only have evidence from the "branches" rather than from the "forks" (there's a lot more branch than fork!), the forking is an inference (although we do see incipient speciation in real time, so it's well supported). But you could if you wanted postulate that each branch is separately created, but that the forks represent forks in a Designer's decision tree, rather than actual ancestry.

It's just a bit odd, then, why the Designer would keep so strictly to lineages, and not transfer good solutions from one branch to another.

EL: It's just a bit odd, then, why the Designer would keep so strictly to lineages, and not transfer good solutions from one branch to another.

J: Is it self-evidently "odd" to you? If not, in what sense is it odd? You see, it's not self-evidently "odd" to me at all. Nor is the alternative self-evident to me. And yet no one can even articulate all the ad-hoc hypotheses required to explain, hypothetico-deductively, either case.

Jeff: J: Is it self-evidently "odd" to you? If not, in what sense is it odd? You see, it's not self-evidently "odd" to me at all. Nor is the alternative self-evident to me. And yet no one can even articulate all the ad-hoc hypotheses required to explain, hypothetico-deductively, either case.

First, where did she say it was self-evident?

Second, does it seem self-evident to you because God a person, just like us, except with all of our good properties turned up to infinity?

It's this sort of simplistic conception that results in the idea that God wants to be worshiped, cares about petty things, today and in the past, etc. If he could have decided not to create us, but still would be no less great, then why would he want to be worshiped?

Does he need us to remind him of how great he is? Not if it's omnipotent. Does God have to persuade or impress anyone? Not unless God needs their cooperation to fulfill his will.

IOW, the idea only seems self evident if you assume that being intimately familiar with God is the same as being intimately familiar with human beings. God is just like us, just infinitely greater. But this ignores all of the complexity and limitations that human beings exhibit.

That we were made in God's image, and therefore you're already familiar with him, is based on dogma, not rational criticism.

Human beings are good explanations for human designed things because of our human needs and limitations.

J: I was talking about biological nested hierarchies. What are you talking about here?None of them work so far by any pre-agreed-upon criteria.

V: They work the same way as all science does, our knowledge is limited. They provide a frame work for study. There logic is science's logic and limitations.

J: You're dead wrong. Newton's gravitational equations and others have very impressive breadths of predictive power. Nothing we know about mutational effects and their frequencies indicates naturalistic UCA is logically possible for any tree whatsoever.

J: No, you have a non-falisifiable hypothesis for which there is no evidence.

Z: We went over this before as well, provide a scientific theory that better explains what we observe.Provide evidence of a designer.

J: I don't have to provide squat when no one else has squat. But an analogical inference IS an inductive inference. And it's clear that the inability of even naturalists to cease using teleological language when speaking of organisms and their functions indicates that those kinds of analogical inferences are, as even Dawkins and others admit, well-nigh irresistable, TRUE OR NOT!

V: And yet,scientists continue to actually put specific hypothesis with specific results , published even if contrary to expected results.

J: Give me an hypothesis related to naturalistic UCA that has survived it's original form for any length of time, as do gravitational, electro-magnetic, etc equations to this day. And CH is not arguing against research. He's arguing, rightly, against lying about "overwhelming evidence" where there is none, in the name of science.

V: That is something. There is no water to muddy,there is only one scientific explanation out there. Provide another. It is the way science works.

Scott: Second, does it seem self-evident to you because God a person, just like us, except with all of our good properties turned up to infinity?

Jeff: You would do well to actually read the posts rather than attempt to read minds with all the bias inherent in your animus. I didn't say either UCA or SA was self-evident. EL is the one who thinks something is odd based on her blind faith belief that she knows what is logically possible, when in fact she could not possibly know that if she also assumesthat extant physical and chemical laws/regularities were in operation throughout biological history.

EL: It's just a bit odd, then, why the Designer would keep so strictly to lineages, and not transfer good solutions from one branch to another.

Jeff: J: Is it self-evidently "odd" to you? If not, in what sense is it odd? You see, it's not self-evidently "odd" to me at all. Nor is the alternative self-evident to me. And yet no one can even articulate all the ad-hoc hypotheses required to explain, hypothetico-deductively, either case.

First, where did she say it was self-evident?

Scott: Second, does it seem self-evident to you because God a person, just like us, except with all of our good properties turned up to infinity?

Jeff: You would do well to actually read the posts rather than attempt to read minds with all the bias inherent in your animus.

And where in Elisabeth's comment did she suggest CA was self evident?

Jeff: I didn't say either UCA or SA was self-evident. EL is the one who thinks something is odd based on her blind faith belief that she knows what is logically possible, when in fact she could not possibly know that if she also assumesthat extant physical and chemical laws/regularities were in operation throughout biological history.

First, I'm the one with an animus?

Second, I was referring to ID's design hypothesis regarding complexity, information, etc., not any specific history, such as SA. Is this self evident? If not, no one has actually figured out how to measure the fSCI (or whatever the latest acronym is these days) of anything, in practice.

If you're not a design proponent, then it would seem your objection is merely a denial that we have progress on the subject.

Again, it's not clear what you mean when you say "were not sure if X is logically possible". Specifically, If it can be applied to any idea, then it's unclear how this can be used in any sort of critical way.

For example, did we know that atoms were logically possible when we first proposed them as a solution to any problem? Do we know they are logically possible now, as opposed to then? If their status changed, when did it happen and why?

Of course not, unless you were interested in explaining how things work.Science.

But an analogical inference IS an inductive inference.

No doubt analogies are means for understanding, but as with all analogies subject to limitations and unproven extrapolations.

And it's clear that the inability of even naturalists to cease using teleological language when speaking of organisms and their functions indicates that those kinds of analogical inferences are, as even Dawkins and others admit, well-nigh irresistable,

So life is in some way,which you don't have to in any way specify ,teleological because of language? Really? Do all languages have the same teleological construction?

V: Of course not, unless you were interested in explaining how things work.

J: No one has explained either SA or UCA in a hypothetico-deductive manner. IOW, no one has explained either. Nor does CH contend that no explanation is possible in the future. He's merely arguing against lying in the name of science (which, after all, is nothing more than applying reason to experience).

J: But an analogical inference IS an inductive inference.

V: No doubt analogies are means for understanding, but as with all analogies subject to limitations and unproven extrapolations.

J: Right. This is why science is tentative. It never proves anything absolutely.

J: And it's clear that the inability of even naturalists to cease using teleological language when speaking of organisms and their functions indicates that those kinds of analogical inferences are, as even Dawkins and others admit, well-nigh irresistable,

V: So life is in some way,which you don't have to in any way specify ,teleological because of language? Really?

J: Language is an articulation of our thoughts. Language doesn't cause biological variation. We can't resist speaking analogically of critters as teleologically-designed composites precisely because the teleological-analogy provides SOME specificity in the TOTAL absence of a hypothetico-deductive explanation. People are always imposing whatever specificity they can with whatever inductive warrant they can muster. But ALL inductive inferences are tentative in the relevant sense.

Jeff: I didn't say either UCA or SA was self-evident. EL is the one who thinks something is odd based on her blind faith belief that she knows what is logically possible, when in fact she could not possibly know that if she also assumesthat extant physical and chemical laws/regularities were in operation throughout biological history.

Scott: First, I'm the one with an animus?

J: Not necessarily. You could be mentally incompetent. But I think the more charitable interpretation of your utter confusion is that you have animus that seriously clouds your thinking.

Scott: Second, I was referring to ID's design hypothesis regarding complexity, information, etc., not any specific history, such as SA. Is this self evident?

J: Of course it's not self-evident. It's an inference.

Scott: If not, no one has actually figured out how to measure the fSCI (or whatever the latest acronym is these days) of anything, in practice.

J: No has figured out whether any of the "rules" used to generate trees correspond to natural causality, either. So what's your point? At least a teleological inference is an analogical inference, which is an INDUCTIVE inference. Your approach is arbitrary. It says,

"Reject any inductive inference that doesn't aid and abet atheism and then believe whatever's left over, whether or not there is any explanation for it. And then tell everyone there's OVER-WHELMING evidence for it that constitutes progress, even though those very beliefs are admitted, in less public contexts, to be no more probable/plausible than the ones arbitrarily rejected."

Scott: If you're not a design proponent, then it would seem your objection is merely a denial that we have progress on the subject.

J: We've made progress by your definition of it. But your definition is worthless. Because by your definition, we could never render SA more or less plausible than UCA, or either of those with non-genealogical views of biological origins. And thus, it could never be more or less RATIONAL to act on any of the implications of any of those beliefs/ideas.

Scott: Again, it's not clear what you mean when you say "were not sure if X is logically possible". Specifically, If it can be applied to any idea, then it's unclear how this can be used in any sort of critical way.

J: But typically we have a theory that has some breath of explanation GREATER than any known alternatives. In this case, we don't. There is no breadth of explanation entailed in what we know of mutational effects and frequencies that renders, say, a Ken Ham approach to SA less plausible than UCA on evidential grounds. In other words, I can't prove that something LIKE gravitational equations are valid for natural history. But I have INDUCTIVE warrant for believing it (i.e., corroborated analogical extrapolations). On the other hand, there is NO reason to believe naturalistic UCA over SA. And yet scientists pontificate otherwise, incessantly. None of them, to my knowledge, are publicly saying what you are saying about "progress."

Basically what you're saying, Scott, is that there is no evidence FOR any theory. There's only evidence AGAINST a theory. But this is where you're confused. Naive falsificationism is false. It's implied by scientists' admission that solipsism is unfalsifiable by naive falsificationism. By that view, we make no non-solipsist advances in our understanding.

But once you reject naive falsificationism, inductive relative plausibility criteria are all that's left, even though they are only believed to be, at best, truth-approximating in the LONG term. They can be invalid in the short term.

When biologists speak of "over-whelming evidence" for naturalistic UCA, or its "best explanation" status, they are literally LYING LIKE DOGS, unless they're actually complete idiots and have no idea what those words even mean. THIS is all that CH is arguing against.

Scott: Can clarify what you mean when you say "no scientific evidence" by revealing what type of empiricist are you? Please be specific.

J: This question from one who denies that any coherent view is knowably more or less plausible/probable than another. Why do you even care what people believe with such a ridiculously arbitrary approach to "beliefs?"

Jeff: This question from one who denies that any coherent view is knowably more or less plausible/probable than another.

It's called asking for clarification. You might try it some time.

Jeff: Why do you even care what people believe with such a ridiculously arbitrary approach to "beliefs?"

"William Warren Bartley compared critical rationalism to the very general philosophical approach to knowledge which he called "justificationism". Most justificationists do not know that they are justificationists. Justificationism is what Popper called a "subjectivist" view of truth, in which the question of whether some statement is true, is confused with the question of whether it can be justified (established, proven, verified, warranted, made well-founded, made reliable, grounded, supported, legitimated, based on evidence) in some way."

We make progress when we find errors in our theories, which is subtractive, not additive.

Nor is probability a valid means of criticism unless something is completely random and you know all of the possible outcomes.

For example if, for some horrible reason, you were presented with variations of Russian Roulette, with more or less chambers and bullets, you would know all the possible outcomes and could use game theory to work out which variation was most favorable to your survival.

But evolutionary theory isn't random. Nor do you know all of the possible outcomes. As such, probability isn't a valid criticism.

Scott: We make progress when we find errors in our theories, which is subtractive, not additive.

Jeff: This wouldn't be progress against an infinite set in the first place. In the second place, without foundationalism, it's impossible to "subtract" at all if you don't know ANY idea is more or less plausible than another. You're UTTERLY confused.

Jeff: Again, no one has ever articulated an explanation for even ONE naturalistic UCA tree. Please pay attention to what I've said OVER and OVER. If you know it to be false, DEMONSTRATE it's falsehood. Pontifications are WORTHLESS to sane people.

Scott: You cannot justify non-basic beliefs based on basic beliefs that are themselves not justified. It's impossible.

Jeff: Please pay attention to what I've said OVER and OVER. Foundational beliefs are NATURALLY-FORMED beliefs. They are NOT discursively derived. They are NOT discursively justified. They occur NATURALLY. Then discursive reasoning is done voluntarily using those naturally-formed beliefs as GROUNDS.

Jeff: Again, no one has ever articulated an explanation for even ONE naturalistic UCA tree.

I've articulated the underlying explanation behind evolutionary theory: adaptive complexity arrises from variation and selection. UCA would be a necessary consequence of that explanation, not just merely a explanation-less prediction to be naively falsified.

Jeff: If you know it to be false, DEMONSTRATE it's falsehood. Pontifications are WORTHLESS to sane people.

Merely saying something is a "pontification" to "sane people" is a bad criticism because it could be loosely applied to anything.

Why don't you start out by explaining the origin of the knowledge in the genome, then point out how darwinism doesn't fit that explanation. Please be specific.

Jeff: Please pay attention to what I've said OVER and OVER. Foundational beliefs are NATURALLY-FORMED beliefs. They are NOT discursively derived.

The table illusion I referenced in an earlier thread could be considered a naturally-formed belief. However, as I pointed out, we can devise ways to rationality criticize it.

IOW, you're assuming that there are boundaries where human reasoning and problem solving cannot solve, which correlate with basic beliefs.

How do you explain the relatively recent and exponential growth of human knowledge? What part of that explanation includes or implies such boundaries exist?

What a profound example of a christian you are, bpunkmatic. I mean that seriously. You display the same arrogant, sanctimonious, vicious attitude of your biblical 'God'.

Thanks for also providing a good example of what I brought up in another thread:

"After all, you not only ask for, but demand answers from evolutionary scientists. You godbots expect evolutionary scientists to find and prove every nitpicking detail about everything that has ever occurred on Earth and throughout the universe RIGHT NOW, otherwise scientists don't have a credible evolutionary theory and your imaginary sky daddy is a sure thing."

And as I also said:

"So let's see the amount of detail about your chosen religious fairy tales that you demand from science."

"You godbots expect evolutionary scientists to find and prove every nitpicking detail about everything that has ever occurred on Earth and throughout the universe RIGHT NOW, otherwise scientists don't have a credible evolutionary theory and your imaginary sky daddy is a sure thing."

You are delusional.

Forget "every nit picking detail".

To repeat: These people (evolutionist philosophers masquerading as "scientists") can't even demonstrate that the fundamental mechanisms of mutation, natural selection, drift, etc are even up to the task of forming a bacterial flagellum let alone the huge array of "irreducibly complex" components and systems that various living organisms contain and depend upon.